Message ID | 1399985844-788-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 13 May 2014 13:57, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote: > The following changes since commit 1b5498f6874ad661bcd9558bc2b0a4e25643a5bf: > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/stefanha/tags/block-pull-request' into staging (2014-05-13 10:35:47 +0100) > > are available in the git repository at: > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/qemu-kvm.git uq/master > > for you to fetch changes up to 4700a316df7d2cdcd256dcd64a10cec643f4dfa1: > > pc: port 92 reset requires a low->high transition (2014-05-13 13:22:29 +0200) > > Rebased on top of Cornelia's s390 one_reg patch, and including > the first batch of x86 soft reset patches. > > Paolo Applied, thanks. -- PMM
Am 13.05.2014 14:57, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Paolo Bonzini (7): > kvm: reset state from the CPU's reset method > kvm: forward INIT signals coming from the chipset > target-i386: fix set of registers zeroed on reset > target-i386: preserve FPU and MSR state on INIT > apic: do not accept SIPI on the bootstrap processor > cpu: make CPU_INTERRUPT_RESET available on all targets > pc: port 92 reset requires a low->high transition You forgot to fill in my Rbs, and somehow the Cc:s were not processed to detect this earlier. Also to me a generic cpu_soft_reset() contradicts Peter confirming that doing this in a specific qemu_irq based way is desired? If the PC is going to implement the qemu_irq triggered logic, then CPU_FOREACH() can be done in PC code, and no generalization of interrupt names is needed. Or do you have any non-x86 work cooking as well? Regards, Andreas
Il 15/05/2014 18:54, Andreas Färber ha scritto: > You forgot to fill in my Rbs, and somehow the Cc:s were not processed to > detect this earlier. > > Also to me a generic cpu_soft_reset() contradicts Peter confirming that > doing this in a specific qemu_irq based way is desired? Yes, I will implement qemu_irq. > If the PC is > going to implement the qemu_irq triggered logic, then CPU_FOREACH() can > be done in PC code, and no generalization of interrupt names is needed. > Or do you have any non-x86 work cooking as well? The patches do not include the generic CPU_FOREACH. I didn't get any answer (positive or negative) when I said I'd keep patches 1-7, so I included the rename in the pull request. Paolo